Scholars and Works

Phrynichus Atticista
Σοφιστικὴ προπαρασκευή (Praeparatio sophistica)

A. Generalities

The Praeparatio sophistica (PS) was Phrynichus’ magnum opus and one of the most important Atticist compilations of antiquity. Its title is given as Σοφιστικὴ προπαρασκευή in the only surviving manuscript witness of the lexicon (cod. Par. Coisl. 345Par. Coisl. 345, see below), while it appears as Σοφιστικὴ παρασκευή in all the indirect sources (Steph.Byz. τ 12, Phot. Bibl. cod. 158, Su. φ 764, schol. Ar. Pac. 415a, Anonymus in Hermogenis Περὶ ἰδεῶν Rh. 7.973.14 Walz).

The only surviving manuscript of the PS is an epitomeEpitome (see B. Transmission, critical editions, and reference studies), so most of our knowledge of this lexicon comes from the extensive summary of the PS provided by PhotiusPhotius in the Bibliotheca (cod. 158)Phot. Bibl. cod. 158. The value of this source cannot be overestimated. Photius is the only source to present the aims of the PS, which he describes as ‘a collection of words and short expressions, some as long as phrases, formulated and arranged in graceful and original ways’ (λέξεών τε συναγωγὴ καὶ λόγων κομματικῶν, ἐνίων δὲ καὶ εἰς κῶλα παρατεινομένων τῶν χαριέντως τε καὶ καινοπρεπῶς εἰρημένων τε καὶ συντεταγμένων). Photius later states that the work ‘is obviously useful to potential writers and orators’ (χρήσιμον δὲ δηλονότι τὸ βιβλίον τοῖς τε συγγράφειν καὶ ῥητορεύειν ἐθέλουσιν) and specifies that Phrynichus himself subdivided the expressions he has collected: ‘some are for public speaking, some for writing, some for conversation; some are delivered also for scoptic talks or are used in varieties [of literature] that have a love theme (τὰς μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν ῥήτορσιν ἀποδεδόσθαι, τὰς δὲ τοῖς συγγράφουσι, τὰς δὲ συνουσίαις ἐφαρμόζειν, ἐνίας δὲ καὶ εἰς τὰς σκωπτικὰς ὑπάγεσθαι λαλιάς, ἢ καὶ εἰς τοὺς ἐρωτικοὺς ἐκφέρεσθαι τρόπους: this last expression may perhaps be a specific reference to romances). Some of Photius’ formulations are probably indebted to the way in which Phrynichus himself described the PS in some of the prefatory materials. In his summary, Photius touches on a variety of issues related to the PS, most of which would otherwise be unknown to us due to the meagre manuscript evidence. Many of these issues will be dealt with in more detail below (notably: the number of books, the lexicon’s structure and its aims, on which see C. Content and structure; the literary canon, on which see E. Canon; views about language and style, on which see F. Evaluative terminology).

B. Transmission, editions, and reference studies

The textual evidence for Phrynichus’ PS is of two kinds. The direct transmission consists of the heavily abbreviated epitome contained in a codex unicus, Par. Coisl. 345, a 10th-century manuscript containing several lexicographical works. In what follows, the text preserved by cod. Par. Coisl. 345 will be conventionally referred to as ‘the epitome’, although it may be more accurate to describe it as something between a highly epitomised version of the original PS and a collection of excerpts (for a detailed discussion, see Cavarzeran forthcoming). In the manuscript, the PS bears the title ἐκ τῶν τοῦ Φρυνίχου τοῦ Ἀρραβίου τῆς σοφιστικῆς προπαρασκευῆς and covers folios 47r to 64v. It is arranged alphabetically, but only up to the first letter. The current disposition of the material defies any attempt to identify the rationale behind the original arrangement of the entries. The number of entries under each letter varies widely. One extreme is alpha, which alone covers almost half of the epitome. The other extreme is zeta, represented only by the lemma ζωμήρυσις (PS 72.14Phryn. PS 72.14), which occurs without any interpretamentum and is followed by a 12-line blank space.

Since the direct tradition of the PS is limited to a single manuscript, the indirect tradition is of considerable importance. The main indirect sources for the study of the PS are the SynagogeSynagoge (edited by Cunningham 2003) and Photius’ lexicon (edition in Theodoridis 1982–2013). It is certain that the PS was a key source for the original version of the Synagoge and especially for its expansions (most notably the third one, Σʹʹʹ; see Cunningham, 2003, 46; 53; 55; and 56). We do not know whether the lexicon in 37 books described by Photius (see B. Content and structure) was the very same work as that produced by Phrynichus in the 2nd century CE. More importantly, it is not generally agreed that Photius had already consulted the lexica he later describes in the Bibliotheca while working on his own lexicon (see Alpers 1981, 74). This means that Photius probably derived the entries ascribable to the PS from a copy of the expanded Synagoge that was available to him.

Comparing the evidence from the epitome and the indirect tradition is useful to better understand the kind of manipulation the text underwent during its transmission. The relationship between the epitome and the indirect tradition can be summarised as follows. In some cases, the entries shared by the epitome and the indirect tradition are very likely to have resulted from the same previous epitomising process; some of these entries are the product of particularly drastic shortening, and so they are now reduced to their minimal constituents (see, for instance, Phryn. PS 2.9–10Phryn. PS 2.9–10 = Σ^b α 578 [= Phot. α 670 = Su. αι 362, ex Σʹ]). These cases are evidence that the epitome and the indirect tradition probably had access to a shared corpus of material.

In other entries, either the epitome is more informative than the indirect tradition or vice versa. By way of example, in PS 4.1–2Phryn. PS 4.1–2 the epitome has a more substantial text than Σ^b α 1794 (= Phot. α 2444 = Su. α 3241, ex Σ´, see entry ἄπλυτος πώγων). In PS 20.1–2Phryn. PS 20.1–2, on the other hand, the epitome is less informative than Phot. α 551 (see the entry ᾄδειν ὅμοιον). Occasionally, these differences allow us to identify the epitomisation strategies adopted in the epitome or in the indirect tradition (see also under E. Canon for further examples). In several other cases, however, the entries of the epitome and of the indirect tradition respectively result from different, though often complementary, epitomising or excerpting processes: see, e.g., PS 3.8–10Phryn. PS 3.8–10 vis-à-vis Phot. α 2019 (= Phryn. PS fr. 199Phryn. PS fr. 199 (= Phot. α 2019): see the entry εἰ with neuter adjective and future). It is difficult to ascertain whether the epitome and the indirect tradition rework the same source text(s) in different ways, or whether they depend on material that had already been epitomised in different ways (see Favi forthcoming). This is a multifaceted scenario, and so no general rule can be made about the nature and format of the material which is behind the epitome and the indirect tradition, nor can we determine which of the two is the more important or reliable witness. In any case, it may be supposed that the material of the PS present in the Coislinianus and other Byzantine sources are all likely to depend on a shared body of previously epitomised and excerpted material, which must date back at the least to the time before the original redaction of the Synagoge (roughly between the late 8th century and the 830s, see Cunningham 2003, 49).

There are only two modern editions of the PS. Bekker (1814–1821 vol. 1, 3–74) is still a useful reference work (and probably includes the results of earlier unpublished research by 17th- and 18th-century scholars). The standard edition still in use today is de Borries (1911). De Borries’ edition has served scholarship for decades, but is now painfully outdated. Most notably, in 1911 the new Zavorda manuscript of Photius’ lexicon was still unknown (it was discovered by Linos Politis in the late 1950s: see Politis 1961; Politis 2012, 63–7, with further bibliography). Since the indirect tradition of the PS in Photius’ lexicon is of great importance (see above), a new edition of the PS would greatly benefit from the evidence of the so-called ‘new Photius’. Another valuable contribution to the study of the PS is Kaibel’s inaugural dissertation (1899), which examines various aspects of the early history of the PS, how it may have originally been arranged, and how it was later transmitted and transformed over the centuries; it also closely examines the extensive comic material found in the epitome of the PS.

C. Content and structure

Photius seems to have been one of the last readers of a version of a multi-book version of the PS. He informs us that the original work comprised 37 books, of which he read 36; presumably at some point during the transmission of the work, two books were merged. This information is inconsistent with that in Su. φ 764Su. φ 764, where we read that the PS consisted of either 47 or 74 books. These figures are probably incorrect and can be explained as follows: the numeral μζʹ (i.e., 47) is probably a mistake for λζʹ (i.e., 37), while the numeral οδʹ (i.e., 74) probably derives from a misinterpretation of Phrynichus’ claim in the dedicatory letter to Commodus, where, as Photius tells us, Phrynichus wrote that he intended to double the number of books he had written, if he lived long enough (i.e., 37 x 2 = 74). Thanks to Photius, we also learn that although the PS was dedicated to Commodus (Κομμόδῳ τὸ βιβλίον προσφωνῶν), individual books were dedicated to different people (ἀλλ’ εἰ καὶ τῷ βασιλεῖ φησι τοὺς λόγους ἀναθεῖναι, ὅμως διαφόροις αὐτοὺς φαίνεται προσπεφωνηκώς; some of the dedicatees are the addressed in more than one book). This is valuable information for reconstructing Phrynichus’ intellectual environment and for dating some of the books more precisely. The research undertaken to this end has shown that the PS began to circulate as early as the time of Antoninus Pius, when it was gradually published in individual books. It seems likely, however, that during the reign of Commodus Phrynichus collected the various books he had previously published and produced a second (revised?) edition of the PS, which he dedicated as a whole to the new emperor (see Avotins 1978; Bowie forthcoming).

Despite the importance of the PS, the only scholars to have investigated what its original structure might have looked like are Kaibel (1899) and de Borries (1911), who came to opposite conclusions. Kaibel believed that the original structure of the PS was thematic, not unlike Pollux’s Onomasticon; he then suggested that, after the author’s death, the PS was extensively manipulated and turned into an alphabetical lexicon in order to secure its preservation and improve searchability. De Borries, essentially relying on Photius’ account, rejected Kaibel’s reconstruction and concluded that the alphabetical arrangement of the epitome was entirely due to the original PS. Photius’ account is of great importance in this respect and provides valuable insights. In Bibl. cod. 158.100b, Photius explains that the PS followed an alphabetical order and reiterates that he read 36 books, which ‘encompassed’ (περιλαμβάνοντας) material from alpha to omega. Earlier in the text, after mentioning the dedicatees of each book, Photius remarks that all books after the 11th were dedicated to Menophilus, up to the letter omega (101a). From this information it is quite clear that Photius consulted a version of the PS which, although divided into several books, was arranged alphabetically. But there are further elements to consider. According to Photius, in the dedicatory letter which opened Book 9 Phrynichus wrote that while Aristocles had prompted him to undertake this monumental enterprise, he owed its progress to Rufinus. In this connection, Kaibel (1899, 7) reasonably observed that it would be counterintuitive if Phrynichus had arranged his material alphabetically and later stopped compiling the work at some point: to end the work at a random letter would have been to leave it essentially unfinished. Instead, if Phrynichus followed a thematic rather than alphabetical order, the statement about Rufinus would be easier to explain.

Judging from the surviving material (see B. Transmission, critical editions, and reference studies), the PS may have been divided into entries of medium length, beginning with the citation of a locus classicus, then offering some quotations to illustrate Attic – and occasionally also non-Attic – usage, and finally providing advice on style. Some features of the PS that we can still identify (as duly stressed by Kaibel 1899, 7–12) are reminiscent of a horizontal structureOnomastic structure (on this concept, see Tosi 2015, 623–5). Hints of this could be the use of generalising words such as τόπος ‘place’, σκεῦος ‘tool’, and πρᾶξις ‘activity’, which are very common in Pollux’s Onomasticon and which in the PS could have been part of longer thematic discussions starting from a base word (e.g. see entries marked by τόπος: PS 5.3‒10Phryn. PS 5.3–10; PS 49.14‒9Phryn. PS 49.14–9; PS 74.9‒12Phryn. PS 74.9–12; PS 81.9‒10Phryn. PS 81.9–10; PS 113.1‒2Phryn. PS 113.1–2; PS 123.4‒5Phryn. PS 123.4–5; PS 126.3‒4Phryn. PS 126.3–4; for discussion and further examples, see Cavarzeran forthcoming). These horizontal structures may have had further internal subdivisions, for instance by style or literary genre (see F. Evaluative terminology). Another indication of some kind of horizontal structuring is the repetition of the same lemma in different entries, as if material from an original entry with a broader thematic discussion had been broken up into shorter entries (see e.g. ἵππος PS 5.3‒10Phryn. PS 5.3–10; 41.2‒3Phryn. PS 41.2–3; 45.11Phryn. PS 45.11; 79.20Phryn. PS 79.20; 85.19‒86.2Phryn. PS 85.19–86.2; 111.1‒2Phryn. PS 111.1–2; γέρων PS 57.4Phryn. PS 57.4; 59.7‒9Phryn. PS 59.7–9; 76.10‒1Phryn. PS 76.10–1; 88.12‒3Phryn. PS 88.12–3; 114.1‒2Phryn. PS 114.1–2; 114.3‒9Phryn. PS 114.3–9; γῆ PS 10.7‒8Phryn. PS 10.7–8; 21.14‒7Phryn. PS 21.14–7; 55.20Phryn. PS 55.20; 57.1‒3Phryn. PS 57.1–3; 103.7Phryn. PS 103.7).

Nevertheless, the question of the original form of the PS remains unresolved. The evidence of a horizontal structure recognised by Kaibel, based on Photius’ account in the Bibliotheca, and the fragments preserved by the indirect tradition do not allow for a univocal interpretation of the original arrangement and later evolution of this once monumental work.

D. Sources

Identifying the sources used by Phrynichus for the compilation of the PS is a complex task, as no systematic work has been carried out on this topic. De Borries (1911) seems to have been uninterested in Phrynichus’ methodology in relation to previous and contemporary scholarship on Attic, style, and language correctness. As possible sources for some entries of the PS he mentions the treatise on the Alexandrian dialect by Minucius Pacatus Irenaeus (see Regali 2015) and Aelius DionysiusAelius Dionysius (de Borries 1911, XXVI). The idea of dependence on Aelius Dionysius is repeated by Erbse (1950, 57–9) and Alpers (2001, 198). A correct evaluation of the matter cannot do without a new edition of the PS, which should at least include a full apparatus of loci classici and erudite parallels (de Borries limits himself to a selection) and re-assess the attribution of the ‘fragments’ to the lexicon. Similarly, the analysis of the many parallels between Aelius Dionysius and the PS would have to start from a re-evaluation of the indirect tradition of the former in Byzantine scholarship (see the entry Aelius Dionysius, Ἀττικὰ ὀνόματα).

Agreements between the two lexicographers may not always indicate direct derivation, but rather the use of common sources (such as DiogenianusDiogenianus). For example, the entry PS 115.12–5Phryn. PS 115.12–5 on ὑπόξυλος as a metaphorical qualification for false people is cited by Fischer (1974, 41), following Naber (1864, 26; 89), as a case of direct quotation from Aelius Dionysius: ὑπόξυλος ποιητής, ῥήτωρ, φίλος καὶ τὰ ὅμοια· εἴρηται κατὰ μεταφορὰν τῶν ἀπὸ ξύλου πεποιημένων σκευῶν, οἷς ἐπιπολῆς <ἐπ>ελήλαται ἄργυρος ἢ χρυσός. καὶ τίθεται ἐπὶ τῶν πονηρῶν μὲν <ἔνδοθεν>, ἐντυχεῖν δ’ ἐπιεικῶν (‘A ὑπόξυλος (‘wooden underneath’) poet, rhetor, friend, and the like: it is metaphorically derived from tools made of wood to which silver or gold is applied on top’). However, Ael.Dion. υ 12Ael.Dion. υ 12 (= schol. Hermog. 5.486 Walz, cf. Phot. υ 230), though dealing with the same metaphorical usage, hardly shows points of contact with Phrynichus’ text (ὑπόξυλος· κίβδηλος, ὡς ὑπόχαλκος. Μένανδρος Περινθίᾳ· ‘οὐδ’ αὐτός εἰμι σὺν θεοῖς ὑπόξυλος’, οἷον κίβδηλος καὶ οὐ γνήσιος οὐδὲ ἀληθής [ἀπὸ τῶν ξυλίνων καὶ περιηργυρωμένων σκευῶν], ‘ὑπόξυλος: Counterfeit, like ὑπόχαλκος ‘containing copper underneath’. Menander in The Girl from Perinthus (fr. 9) says: ‘And I’m not false, God willing!’, meaning counterfeit and not authentic or truthful [it comes from tools made of wood and coated with silver]’). Since the schol. Hermog. 5.486 Walz quotes Phrynichus together with Diogenianus and Aelius Dionysius (the latter two in reference to Menander’s line: μέμνηται καὶ Διογενιανὸς ἐν τῇ λέξει τούτου καὶ Αἴλιος Διονύσιος ἐν τῇ ἐκλογῇ τῶν ὀνομάτων ὅτι Μένανδρος ἐν τῇ Περινθίᾳ φησὶν κτλ.), this may speculatively be one of those cases where Phrynichus and Aelius used the same source (Diogenianus) but in different ways.

A different matter is the possible relationship between the PS and the AntiatticistAntiatticist. Since Latte (1915, 378–82), it has been generally agreed that Phrynichus used the Antiatticist at least for the compilation of Book 2 of the Eclogue. Given that the PS and the Antiatticist sometimes share the same views, Valente (2015, 55) suggests that it is not implausible that Phrynichus also used the Antiatticist for the compilation of the PS: see, for example, the similarity between PS 40.13Phryn. PS 40.13 (ἀντιβολία· ἡδὺ καὶ σεμνόν ‘ἀντιβολία, [‘prayer’]: Pleasant and solemn [word]’) and Antiatt. α 33Antiatt. α 33 (ἀντιβολία· Θουκυδίδης ζ´, ‘ἀντιβολία [‘prayer’]: Thucydides in [Book] 7’), or PS 88.2Phryn. PS 88.2 (λάσανα· ὡς ἡμεῖς, ἐφ’ ὧν ἀποπατοῦμεν, ‘Potties: As we [say], the [things] on which we defecate’) and Antiatt. λ 22Antiatt. λ 22 (λάσανα· ἐφ’ ὧν ἀποπατοῦμεν. Πλάτων Ποιητῇ, ‘Potties: The [things] on which we defecate. Plato in The Poet (fr. 124)’). At present, however, we lack a thorough assessment of the parallels between the PS and the Antiatticist and it is not unlikely that these parallels depend on common sources. Similarly, given Phrynichus’ interest in stylistic issues in the PS (see F. Evaluative terminology), a study of his sources should also examine the possible parallels with contemporary and later rhetorical sources. Moreover, given the frequency of comic expressionsComic language in the PS, it is likely that Phrynichus also relied on ancient exegesis on comedy, and not necessarily through the mediation of other Atticist lexica. The relationship between the PS and Pollux’s Onomasticon should be investigated more extensively, given their affinities in content and structure (see Matthaios 2015, 295). In conclusion, a study of Phrynichus’ sources in the PS remains a desideratum.

E. Canon

Besides being an Atticist lexicon with prescriptive purposes, the PS has a strong focus on matters of style and register (see Section F. Evaluative terminology). This peculiar orientation no doubt influenced Phrynichus’ selection of reliable authors. According to Photius, Phrynichus’ canon included Plato, Demosthenes and the other nine ‘standard’ orators, Thucydides, Xenophon, Aeschines Socraticus, Critias (εἰλικρινοῦς δὲ καὶ καθαροῦ καὶ ἀττικοῦ λόγου κανόνας καὶ σταθμὰς καὶ παράδειγμά φησιν ἄριστον Πλάτωνά τε καὶ Δημοσθένην μετὰ τοῦ ῥητορικοῦ τῶν ἐννέα χοροῦ, Θουκυδίδην τε καὶ Ξενοφῶντα καὶ Αἰσχίνην τὸν Λυσανίου τὸν Σωκρατικόν, Κριτίαν τε τὸν Καλλαίσχρου), and Antisthenes ‘with his two genuine writings, On Cyrus and On the Odyssey’ (καὶ Ἀντισθένην μετὰ τῶν γνησίων αὐτοῦ δύο λόγων, τοῦ περὶ Κύρου καὶ τοῦ περὶ Ὀδυσσείας: for this problematic limitation, see Prince 2015, 180). Phrynichus also relied on Aristophanes and ‘his familiar chorus’ (μετὰ τοῦ οἰκείου […] χοροῦ), i.e., the other poets of Old Comedy, ‘as long as they use good Attic’ (ἐν οἷς ἀττικίζουσι: see below), Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides (καὶ τῶν τραγικῶν Αἰσχύλον τὸν μεγαλοφωνότατον καὶ Σοφοκλέα τὸν γλυκὺν καὶ τὸν πάνσοφον Εὐριπίδην). Photius further notes that, among these models of Attic language, Phrynichus’ preference goes to Plato, Demosthenes, and Aeschines (‘on account of his seven excellent dialogues, which some critics separate from his oeuvre and attribute to Socrates’, Πλάτων καὶ Δημοσθένης καὶ ὁ τοῦ Λυσανίου Αἰσχίνης δι’ ἀρετὴν τῶν ἑπτὰ διαλόγων, ἃ καὶ ἀφαιρούμενοί τινες τῶν συγγραμμάτων Σωκράτει προσνέμουσιν: on the authenticity of some of Aeschines’ works, see Pentassuglio 2017, 363–4; 366–7).

Phrynichus’ selection is not arbitrary. He partly reworks previously canons belonging to different literary genres (comedy, tragedy, oratory, history, philosophy), autonomously developed according to a complex set of circumstances (see e.g. Citroni 2003 and Nicolai 2013, with further bibliography). Suffice it to say that some of these canons – e.g. that of the three tragedians – were already well established before the work of the Alexandrian scholars began, while others appeared much later – though long before Phrynichus’ time. Furthermore, it should be noted that Critias, Aeschines Socraticus, and Antisthenes also seem to form a coherent group in ancient criticism: cf. e.g. D.H. Th. 51, where Critias, Antisthenes, and Xenophon are cited as Socratics (see Prince 2015, 179), and Longin. Rh. fr. 48.199–207 Patillon–Brisson, where Plato and Xenophon are mentioned along with Aeschines and Antisthenes (but see Pentassuglio 2017, 383–4 on the problematic mention of Aeschines here). Among the extant sources, however, only Phrynichus considers Aeschines to be a κανών (later echoed by Phot. Bibl. cod. 61: see Orth 1928, 55–6; Losacco in Bianchi, Schiano 2019, 526 n. 30; on Aeschines as a major stylistic model, see Aeschin.Socr. testt. 40–58 Pentassuglio).

Unsurprisingly, non-Attic authors such as Homer, Hesiod, etc. do not have an established position in Phrynichus’ canon. Nonetheless, HomerHomer is frequently cited in the PS: far from being a mere object of Phrynichus’ disapproval (as argued by Naechster 1908, 12; cf. the different opinion of de Borries 1911, XXIV–XXV), the poet is sometimes mentioned to strengthen a prescription (see e.g. PS 66.7–12Phryn. PS 66.7–12, on syntactic government), while elsewhere he is probably treated with the deference due to his authority (in PS 67.11–2Phryn. PS 67.11–2 ἐπαοιδή for ἐπῳδή is rejected ‘although’ it is used by Homer).

The existing fragments and indirect sources of the PS only partially overlap with Photius’ description. Indeed, Aeschines is not even mentioned in the epitome (but there are 3 quotations in the fragments), while Plato (12 quotations in the epitome + 18 in the fragments) and Demosthenes (11 + 6) are cited far less frequently than Aristophanes (26 + 46). This is not necessarily due to the whims of fate and could at least partly reflect the interests of those who epitomised and reworked the PS during its long transmission (see A. Generalities and C. Content and structure). Incidentally, this last explanation could also be extended to what de Borries (1911, XXVII) noted – namely, that some works by canonical authors are often quoted in the PS, while others are almost or completely neglected. To take just one example, On the False Embassy is by far the most quoted of Demosthenes’ orations. In this case, however, several factors may further complicate the picture (the early manuscript tradition of each work, the intermediate sources on which Phrynichus may sometimes have relied, and so on), so that the issue cannot simply be dismissed as depending on Phrynichus’ supposed idiosyncrasies, as de Borries believes.

Phrynichus’ attitude towards canonical authors is that of a strict Atticist. As is also clear from the Eclogue, where he explicitly rejects the model of Middle and New Comedy (see e.g. Ecl. 322Phryn. Ecl. 322, 358Phryn. Ecl. 358, 402Phryn. Ecl. 402), his selection is stricter than that of Aelius Dionysius (see the entry Aelius Dionysius, Ἀττικὰ ὀνόματα), Pollux (see the entry Pollux, Ὀνομαστικόν (Onomasticon)), and the Antiatticist (see e.g. Sonnino 2014, 167–73; Fiori 2022, 24–30). Moreover, as we have already seen, in the PS Phrynichus favours some authors over others, thus establishing a kind of ‘canon within the canon’ based on several factors. First, the canon varies slightly according to the focus of each entry. As Tribulato (2024) notes, in the PS Phrynichus privileges the Old ComedyOld Comedy triad, i.e. Aristophanes (26 + 46), Cratinus (12 + 23), and Eupolis (7 + 14), when giving Attic prescriptions, while he also considers other poets of Old Comedy when dealing with stylistic matters or, more generally, when the point is a descriptive one. The extant mentions of other Old Comedy poets are as follows: Plato Comicus (8 + 8), Pherecrates (2 + 12), Hermippus (2 + 4), Aristomenes, Cantharus, and Crates (all mentioned only once in the epitome). As Tribulato (2024) argues, these must be those comic poets whom Photius refers to as ‘Aristophanes’ familiar chorus’ (Sonnino 2014, 167 believes that this expression refers to the poets of later comedy; note, however, that only Diphilus and Menander are explicitly cited in the epitome of the PS). The second factor shaping Phrynichus’ canon is the rhetorical focus of the PS, whereby literary examples must fit different registers and communicative situations (see A. Generalities). To take just one example, comic poets are a major source of scoptic expressions, although these are also found in other genres such as oratory (see Pellettieri forthcoming).

As a third point, it is worth noting that in the PS Phrynichus may have varied his approach to Attic tragedy according to the different purposes of his work. In describing Phrynichus’ canon, Photius calls Aeschylus ‘most magniloquent’ (τὸν μεγαλοφωνότατον), Sophocles ‘sweet’ (τὸν γλυκύν), and Euripides ‘most clever’ (τὸν πάνσοφον). Photius’ words may reflect Phrynichus’ judgement, given that Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides had been ascribed such qualities at least since Aristophanes’ time. Thus, despite Atticist circumspection towards tragedy, it is conceivable that Phrynichus was happy to appeal to the testimony of the three great tragedians when dealing with stylistic features. As an example, see PS fr. *13Phryn. PS fr. *13 (= Σ^b α 813), where Sophocles’ ἀκούσιμα, ‘things heard’, is considered to be more solemn and poetic than ἀκουστά, often used by Euripides and classified as πολιτικώτερον ‘more urbane’ (see F. Evaluative terminology and the entries ἁμαξιαῖα ῥήματα and αὐθέντης). In sum, each tragic poet may have served to illustrate a particular style or register: we may recall that Quint. 10.1.67 considered Euripides a better model for forensic oratory (illud quidem nemo non fateatur necesse est, iis qui se ad agendum comparant utiliorem longe fore Euripiden, ‘What everybody must admit is that Euripides will be much the more useful [than Sophocles] to persons preparing themselves to plead in court’, transl. Russell 2002, 287).

F. Evaluative terminology

The peculiar character of the PS compared to other Atticist lexica shines through in its pronounced attention to matters of styleStyle and registerRegister, which is evident in its approach. This peculiarity can be seen in the nature of the evaluative terminology preserved in the epitome, as well as in the parallel items in the Synagoge tradition (including Photius; some examples in de Borries 1911, XXXI–XXXII), which sometimes preserve further evaluative comments that do not survive in the epitome. On the basis of this, it is possible to conclude that epitomisation (at least as witnessed by the version of the text preserved in cod. Par. Coisl. 345) was responsible for the loss not only of many loci classici (see C. Content and structure), but also of many evaluative comments. By way of example, we may consider the following two sets of parallels:

Phryn. PS 3.8–10Phryn. PS 3.8–10: ἀνόητά γ’ εἰ τοῦτ’ ἦλθες ἐπιτάξων ἐμοί· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀνόητος εἶ ἐπιτάττων τοῦτο. Ἀττικὸν (Ἀττικῶν de Borries) γὰρ τὸ λέγειν ‘ἀνόητα εἰ τοῦτ’ ἐπιτάξεις’.

ἀνόητά γ’ εἰ τοῦτ’ ἦλθες ἐπιτάξων ἐμοί (‘It is foolish if you came to order this to me’, Eup. fr. 371): Meaning ‘you are foolish to order this’. For it is Attic to say ‘it is foolish if you will order this’. (Transl. Favi 2022).

Phot. α 2019 (= Phryn. PS fr. 199)Phryn. PS fr. 199 (= Phot. α 2019): ἀνόητα, εἰ τοῦτο ἐπιτάξεις· οἱ μὲν ἀγοραῖοι καὶ πολλοὶ οὕτως, Ἀττικῶς δὲ καὶ ἐσχηματισμένως Εὔπολις· ἀνόητά <γ’ εἰ τοῦτ’> ἦλθες ἐπιτάξων ἐμοί.

ἀνόητα εἰ τοῦτ’ ἐπιτάξεις: People who speak in an unsophisticated and common fashion say thus, while Eupolis (fr. 371) said in an Attic and artful fashion ἀνόητά <γ’ εἰ τοῦτ’> ἦλθες ἐπιτάξων ἐμοί (‘It is foolish if you came to order this to me’). (Transl. Favi 2022).

Here Photius preserves a different text, beginning with the lemma ἀνόητα, εἰ τοῦτο ἐπιτάξεις, and continuing with the evaluative comment mentioning the ἀγοραῖοι and πολλοί (for the interpretation and relationship of these entries from the PS and Photius, see the entry εἰ with neuter adjective and future).

The second set concerns the hapaxHapax verb ἀνήδομαιἀνήδομαι:

PS 44.7–10Phryn. PS 44.7–10: ἀνήδομαι, ἐφ’ οἷς ἥσθην: ἀντὶ τοῦ οὐκέθ’ ἥδομαι. Ἕρμιππος ‘ἃ <γὰρ> τόθ’ ἥσθην, ταῦτα νῦν ἀνήδομαι’. ἀντὶ τοῦ ⟦καὶ⟧ τὴν ἐπ’ ἐκείνοις γεγενημένην ἀπορρίπτω καὶ ἀποτίθεμαι ἡδονήν.

‘I do not rejoice in the things I once rejoiced in’. Meaning ‘I no longer rejoice’. Hermippus (fr. 28): ‘those things which I once enjoyed, I now find unpleasant’. Meaning ‘I reject and put aside the past pleasure for those things’.

Phot. α 1913Phot. α 1913: ἀνήδομαι ἐφ’ οἷς ἥσθην ποτέ· οὐκέτι ἥδομαι, ἀλλ’ ἐκβάλλω τὴν ἡδονήν. καινὴ ἡ φωνὴ καὶ πολιτικώτερόν τι ἔχουσα. Ἕρμιππος Θεοῖς.

‘I do not rejoice in the things I once rejoiced in’: I no longer rejoice, but rather refuse pleasure. The word is innovative and has a certain refinement. Hermippus in Theoroi (fr. 28)’.

The entry in Photius begins with a slightly different lemma and continues with a different paraphrase; before mentioning Hermippus (without a direct quotation, but including the play’s title), it also adds an evaluative comment that is lost in PS 44.7–10: καινὴ ἡ φωνὴ καὶ πολιτικώτερόν τι ἔχουσα. (For the text of the fragment and a discussion of the sources quoting it, see Comentale 2017, 122–4).

As already mentioned (see A. Generalities), Photius’ description of the PS identifies several literary registers (prose, oratory, satirical speeches, perhaps romance) and also mentions ‘conversations’ (συνουσίαι) as another communicative situation. Photius also openly states that Phrynichus himself used these stylistic categories as a way of further subdividing the expressions he collected in the lexicon (αὐτὸς δὲ διακρίνεσθαί φησι τὰς συνειλεγμένας αὐτῷ φωνάς). All these categories find parallels in the evaluative terminology that has survived in the epitome, which can be divided into three groups (although there is some overlap between them: see Tribulato forthcoming for a complete study):

Typical Atticist terminology, using labels also found in the Eclogue, but with a more limited range than in the Eclogue: for example, Ἀττικός ‘Attic’, δόκιμοςδόκιμος ‘approved’, and ἀρχαῖοςἀρχαῖος ‘ancient’, which can be contrasted with ἀδόκιμος ‘unapproved’, νόθοςνόθος ‘spurious’, ἀμαθήςἀμαθής ‘unlearned’, οἱ πολλοίοἱ πολλοί ‘the many, the mass’, οἱ νῦν(οἱ) νῦν ‘contemporary speakers’, and οἱ ἰδιῶταιοἱ ἰδιῶται ‘unrefined speakers’ (the last three categories arguably identifying sociolects within Post-classical Greek), and others. A comparison with parallel entries in the Synagoge and Photius shows that the epitome retains this kind of terminology quite consistently, sometimes even when the Synagoge and Photius dispose of it. Examples are PS 9.12–7Phryn. PS 9.12–7 vs. Σ α 828 (= Σ^b α 1824, Phot. α 2483, ex Σʹ); PS 39.15Phryn. PS 39.15 vs. Σ^b α 799, Phot. α 842 (ex Σʹʹʹ); and PS 50.12Phryn. PS 50.12 vs. Phot. α 1407.
Terms related to literary styles and genres: σκωπτικός ‘scoptic’ and similar terms, κωμῳδικός ‘comic’ and similar terms, ἐγκωμιάζω ‘to praise’, συγγραφικός ‘appropriate to prose’, ποιητικόςποιητικός ‘poetic’, and τραγικός ‘tragic’. Some of these terms find parallels in the Synagoge and Photius (see e.g. Phot. α 1238 = PS fr. *15Phryn. PS fr. *15 (= Phot. α 1238), with συγγραφικός). Labels identifying the idiolects of certain professional categories (e.g. οἱ ἰατροί ‘doctors’, οἱ ῥήτορες ‘rhetors/orators’) may also refer to the peculiar lexicon and style of technical literature. For example, the adjective ἀμφημερινός ‘quotidian’ (referring to fever), which in PS 43.3–4Phryn. PS 43.3–4 Phrynichus labels with οἱ ἰατροί is amply attested in the corpus Hippocraticum and other medical texts.
Terms that identify registers and communicative situations more generally: σαρκασμός ‘sarcasm, irony’, παίζω ‘to jest’, ἐπὶ καταφρονήσεως ‘for contempt’, ἀνεπαχθής ‘without offence’, σεμνόςσεμνός ‘solemn’, ἀστεῖος ‘elegant, witty’, πολιτικόςπολιτικός ‘urbane’, σπάνιος ‘rare’, μουσικός ‘musical’, ἐν συνουσίᾳ ‘(used) in conversation’ and similar terms, πανταχοῦ ‘(to be used) on every occasion’, καθωμίληται ‘currently employed’ and similar terms, and συνήθεια ‘current language’. Others are common labels of Greek stylistic discourse, and Phrynichus uses them to describe the effect of certain expressions: καλόςκαλός ‘beautiful’, φιλότιμος ‘notable’, ἡδύς ‘sweet’, καινόςκαινός ‘novel’, χρήσιμος ‘useful’, χαρίεις, ‘elegant’, σκληρόςσκληρός ‘austere, harsh’, and σύντομος ‘concise’. Many of these evaluative labels are also preserved in parallel entries in the Synagoge/Photius (e.g. σεμνός, ἀστεῖος, καθωμίληται, and πολιτικός: on the last of these, see PS 43.5–8Phryn. PS 43.5–8 = Phot. α 1118Phot. α 1118 and cf. the entry ἁμαξιαῖα ῥήματα; see also Tribulato forthcoming).

The testimony of the Synagoge/Photius confirms that the presence of evaluative and stylistic terminology was an original feature of the PS. At the same time, there is a risk of circularity in the assumption that lemmas in Photius which are marked by evaluative terminology, but where Photius does not mention Phrynichus and which have no sure parallels in the epitome, should be uncritically ascribed to the PS (these make up the bulk of the fragments in de Borries’ edition: see de Borries 1911, XLIII and the critical discussion in Tribulato 2022, 918–22). This, too, would deserve a new appraisal, in conjunction with a new edition of the PS, which might allow one to identify the distinctive terminology of this lexicon (see e.g. καινότης discussed below).

On the whole, the evaluative terminology of the PS shows that Phrynichus chose his lexical items to aid prose composition and oratory. Photius preserves some other instances of the lexical families of συγγραφικός and ῥητορικός that confirm this (see de Borries 1911, XXVIII). Expressions marked as poetic are few and usually not recommended (see e.g. PS 43.5–8Phryn. PS 43.5–8 and the entry ἁμαξιαῖα ῥήματα). Attic comedy is the main source (see Section E. Canon) of jocular, derisive, or insulting expressionsAbuse (terms of) (on which see Pellettieri forthcoming), to which Phrynichus pays great attention (perhaps because they are useful for rhetoric and oratory); unattributed expressions that can be used for derisive purposes are also common.

Apart from these remarks on the way in which evaluative terminology is used to describe types of style, it is also useful to note how certain labels interact with the general structure of the PS as it can be reconstructed from the epitome. As we have seen in A. Generalities, in the Bibliotheca (cod. 158.101b), Photius dwells on the fact that many of the items collected by Phrynichus were ‘short expressions’ (λόγοι κωμματικοί), some of them extending to the length of phrases arranged in cola (ἐνίων δὲ καὶ εἰς κῶλα παρατεινομένων). This finds independent confirmation in the epitome, where most surviving entries are longer than a single word, a feature that marks a stark difference with the Eclogue (see also de Borries 1911, IV–V). Since there is no commentary on the PS, it is not possible to get a full picture of the types of longer expressions that Phrynichus chose. A bird’s eye view, however, shows that Phrynichus marked many of these longer entries with some selected evaluative terms that tend to cluster around the longer lemmas (although they can also be employed for single words). These evaluative terms are καινός (‘innovative’), ἐναργήςἐναργής (‘vivid’), and ἀστεῖοςἀστεῖος (‘elegant, witty’), which occur in the following entries:

καινός: ᾄδειν ὅμοιον, ‘to sing the same song’ (PS 20.1–2Phryn. PS 20.1–2 ~ Phot. α 551Phot. α 551: see the entry ᾄδειν ὅμοιον); ἀναιδὲς καὶ θρασὺ βλέπειν, ‘to look in a shameless and bold way’ (PS 14.6Phryn. PS 14.6 = Phot. α 1488); ἄνεμος καὶ ὄλεθρος ἄνθρωπος, ‘a man who is wind and ruin’ (PS 21.12Phryn. PS 21.12 = Σ^b α 1351, Phot. α 1801 ex Σʹʹʹ, see the entry ἄνεμος καὶ ὄλεθρος ἄνθρωπος); ἀνήδομαι ἐφ’ οἷς ἥσθην ποτέ, ‘I do not rejoice in the things I once rejoiced in’ (PS 44.7–10Phryn. PS 44.7–10 ~ Phot. α 1913, see above); ἀμφὶ τὰ στρατεύματα δαπανᾶν, ‘to spend money on troops’ (PS 49.1–2Phryn. PS 49.1–2 ~ Phot. α 1377); ἀγανακτῶ σου, ‘I am angry with you’ (PS fr. *5 = Σ^b α 243, Phot. α 101, ex ΣʹʹʹPhryn. PS fr. *5 (= Σ^b α 243, Phot. α 101, ex Σ´´´), see the entry ἀγανακτῶ σου); ἄγρυκτα καὶ ἄλεκτα πέπονθα, ‘I suffered unspeakable and indescribable things’ (PS fr. *66Phryn. PS fr. *66 = Σ^b α 304, Phot. α 273, ex Σʹʹʹ); ἀείνως γλῶσσα καὶ ἀείνως φωνή, ‘an ever-flowing tongue and voice’ (PS fr. *91Phryn. PS fr. *91 = Σ^b α 404, Phot. α 404 ex Σʹʹʹ); ἄνθρωπος οὐ σεμνός, ‘a non-noble man’ (PS fr. *193Phryn. PS fr. *193 = Phot. α 1980).
ἐναργής: αἴρεσθαι τιμαῖς, ‘to be puffed up by honours’ (PS 12.9–10Phryn. PS 12.9–10); ἀνταυγὲς κάλλος, ‘sparkling beauty’ (PS fr. *23Phryn. PS fr. *23 = Phot. α 2058); ἀνεγείρει καὶ ῥιπίζει τὸν ὄχλον, ἢ τὴν πόλιν, ‘(he) foments and inflames the mob, or the city’ (PS fr. *185Phryn. PS fr. *185 = Σ^b α 1350, Phot. α 1784, ex Σʹʹʹ).
ἀστεῖος: ἄριστος κλέπτειν, ‘the best at stealing’ (PS 16.3–5Phryn. PS 16.3–5); ὄζειν ἐτῶν, ‘to smell like years’ (PS 92.3Phryn. PS 92.1: see Pellettieri forthcoming); πλέον ἢ ἐνιαυτῷ πρεσβύτερος ὑπὸ τῆς ἀηδίας γίνομαι, ‘I become a whole year older because of the unpleasantness’ (PS 101.3Phryn. PS 101.3); ἀγρευτικὴ στολή, ‘hunting equipment’ (PS fr. *65Phryn. PS fr. *65 = Σ^b α 303, Phot. α 256, ex Σʹʹʹ).

This overview shows how Phrynichus especially selected his lexical material in order to privilege innovative turns of phrase and witty pairings of words that are not normally associated with each other, and that he may have found only once in Attic authors. In this respect, the category of καινότηςκαινότης proves crucial. As Gerbi (forthcoming) shows, καινότης is a typically Phrynichean parameter, but much rarer in the rest of Atticist lexicography. The frequency of καινότης in those entries of the Synagoge and Photius that can be attributed to the PS confirms that this was an original feature of the lexicon. Phrynichus, however, also employs καινός to refer to outlandish expressions that should be used with caution. Some parallels in the Synagoge and Photius, discussed in Gerbi (forthcoming), suggest that Phrynichus may have further characterised καινότης with other evaluative terms that were meant to clarify the positive or negative understanding of this category. The association of more evaluative labels also characterises other categories (e.g. πολιτικός and σεμνός: see Tribulato forthcoming), showing how in the PS Phrynichus’ attention was focused on unravelling the many nuances of appropriate elocution, going beyond the mere issue of Attic correctness.

Bibliography

Alpers, K. (1981). Das attizistische Lexicon des Oros. Untersuchung und kritische Ausgabe. Berlin, New York.

Alpers, K. (2001). ‘Lexikographie–Griechische Antike’. Ueding, G. (ed.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik. Tübingen, 194–210.

Avotins, I. (1978). ‘The Sophist Aristocles and the Grammarian Phrynichus’. PP 33, 181–91.

Bekker, I. (1814–1821). Anecdota Graeca. 3 vols. Berlin.

Bianchi, N.; Schiano, C. (eds.) (2019). Fozio. Biblioteca. Introduzione di L. Canfora. Nota sulla tradizione manoscritta di S. Micunco. 2 vols. 2nd edition. Pisa.

de Borries, I. (1911). Phrynichi Sophistae Praeparatio sophistica. Leipzig.

Bowie, E. (forthcoming). ‘Phrynichus’ Praeparatio sophistica and Eclogue. Logic and Chronology’. Favi, F.; Pellettieri, A., Tribulato, O. (eds.), New Approaches to Phrynichus’ Praeparatio sophistica. Berlin, Boston.

Cavarzeran, J. (forthcoming). ‘Praeparatio onomastica? Traces of Onomastic Arrangement in Phrynichus’ Praeparatio Sophistica’. Favi, F.; Pellettieri, A., Tribulato, O. (eds.), New Approaches to Phrynichus’ Praeparatio sophistica. Berlin, Boston.

Citroni, M. (2003). ‘I canoni di autori antichi. Alle origini del concetto di classico’. Casarsa, L.; Cristante, L.; Ferrandelli, M. (eds.), Culture europee e tradizione latina. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi (Cividale del Friuli, 16–17 novembre 2001). Trieste, 1–22.

Comentale, N. (2017). Ermippo. Introduzione, traduzione e commento. Mainz.

Cunningham, I. C. (2003). Synagoge. Συναγωγὴ λέξεων χρησίμων. Texts of the Original Version and of MS. B. Berlin, New York.

Erbse, H. (1950). Untersuchungen zu den attizistischen Lexika. Berlin.

Favi, F. (2022). ‘εἰ with neuter adjective and future (Phryn. PS 3.8–10, Phryn. PS fr. 199)’. Tribulato, O. (ed.), Digital Encyclopedia of Atticism. With the assistance of E. N. Merisio. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30687/DEA/2021/01/043.

Favi, F. (forthcoming). ‘How Did the Epitomiser(s) Work? The Epitome of the Praeparatio and the Indirect Transmission in Comparison’. Favi, F.; Pellettieri, A., Tribulato, O. (eds.), New Approaches to Phrynichus’ Praeparatio sophistica. Berlin, Boston.

Fiori, S. (2022). Le citazioni di Aristofane nel lessico dell’Antiatticista. Göttingen.

Fischer, E. (1974). Die Ekloge des Phrynichos. Berlin, New York.

Gerbi, G. (forthcoming). ‘καινῶς εἴρηται. The Concept of Novelty (καινότης) in the Praeparatio Sophistica’. Favi, F.; Pellettieri, A., Tribulato, O. (eds.), New Approaches to Phrynichus’ Praeparatio sophistica. Berlin, Boston.

Kaibel, G. (1899). De Phrynicho sophista. Göttingen.

Latte, K. (1915). ‘Zur Zeitbestimmung des Antiatticista’. Hermes 50, 373–94 (= Id., Kleine Schriften. Munich 1968, 612–30).

Matthaios, S. (2015). ‘Greek Scholarship in the Imperial Era and Late Antiquity’. Montanari, F.; Matthaios, S.; Rengakos, A. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship. 2 vols. Leiden, Boston, 184–296.

Naber, S. A. (1864). Photii lexicon recensuit, adnotationibus instruxit et prolegomena addidit S. A. Naber. Leiden.

Naechster, M. (1908). De Pollucis et Phrynichi Controversiis. Leipzig.

Nicolai, R. (2013). ‘I paradossi del canone’. Costa, V.; Berti, M. (eds.), Ritorno ad Alessandria. Storiografia antica e cultura bibliotecaria: tracce di una relazione perduta. Atti del convegno internazionale Università di Roma Tor Vergata 28–29 novembre 2012. Tivoli, 27–40.

Orth, E. (1928). Rhetorische Forschungen. Vol. 1: Photiana. Leipzig.

Pellettieri, A. (forthcoming). ‘Learned Rudeness. Abusive Expressions in the Praeparatio sophistica’. Favi, F.; Pellettieri, A., Tribulato, O. (eds.), New Approaches to Phrynichus’ Praeparatio sophistica. Berlin, Boston.

Pentassuglio, F. (2017). Eschine di Sfetto. Tutte le testimonianze. Turnhout.

Politis, L. (1961). ‘Die Handschriftensammlung des Klosters Zaborda und die neuaufgefundene Photioshandschrift’. Philologus 105, 136–44.

Politis, L. (2012). Κατάλογος χειρογράφων Ιεράς Μονής Ζάβορδας. Edited by Maria L. Politis. Thessaloniki.

Prince, S. (2015). Antisthenes of Athens. Texts, Translations, and Commentary. Ann Arbor.

Regali, M. (2015). ‘Minucius Pacatus Irenaeus’. Montanari, F.; Montana, F.; Pagani, L. (eds.), Lexicon of Greek Grammarians of Antiquity. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2451-9278_Minucius_Pacatus_Irenaeus. Last accessed on 17 August 2024.

Russell, D. A. (2002). Quintilian. The Orator’s Education. Vol. 4: Books 9–10. Edited and translated by Donald A. Russell. Cambridge, MA.

Sonnino, M. (2014). ‘I frammenti della commedia greca citati da Prisciano e la fonte del lessico sintattico del libro XVIII dell’Ars’. Martorelli, L. (ed.), Greco antico nell’occidente carolingio. Frammenti di testi attici nell’Ars di Prisciano. Hildesheim, Zurich, 163–204.

Theodoridis, C. (1982–2013). Photii Patriarchae Lexicon. 3 vols. Berlin, New York.

Tosi, R. (2015). ‘Typology of Lexicographical Works’. Montanari, F.; Matthaios, S.; Rengakos, A. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship. 2 vols. Leiden, Boston, 622–36.

Tribulato, O. (2022). ‘Photius, ἀναλφάβητος and Atticist lexica’. CQ 72, 914–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838821001038.

Tribulato, O. (2024). ‘“Aristophanes With his Chorus”. Citations and Uses of Comedy in the Lexica of Phrynichus Atticista’. Favi, F.; Mastellari, V. (eds.), Treasuries of Literature. Anthologies, Lexica, Scholia and the Indirect Tradition of Classical Texts in the Greek World. Berlin, Boston, 75–96.

Tribulato, O. (forthcoming). ‘Stylistic Terminology in the Praeparatio sophistica’. Favi, F.; Pellettieri, A., Tribulato, O. (eds.), New Approaches to Phrynichus’ Praeparatio sophistica. Berlin, Boston.

Valente, S. (2015). The Antiatticist. Introduction and Critical Edition. Berlin, Boston.

CITE THIS

Jacopo Cavarzeran, Federico Favi, Giulia Gerbi, Andrea Pellettieri, Olga Tribulato, 'Phrynichus Atticista, Σοφιστικὴ προπαρασκευή (Praeparatio sophistica)', in Olga Tribulato (ed.), Digital Encyclopedia of Atticism. With the assistance of E. N. Merisio.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.30687/DEA/2974-8240/2024/02/011

ABSTRACT

This article presents an overview of Phrynichus Atticista’s Praeparatio sophistica, addressing its transmission, structure, sources, evaluative terminology, and views of the canon of classical authors.